Basicly it was very sceptic and claimed there's been no findings in the medical science and literature that would support the assumptions the blood type diet rests on.

Also, the discussion on http://www.skepdic.com/comments/blooddietcom.html was very interesting but hard to follow. There, one apparent supporter of BTD (Eric Morrison, the last commenter on the page) said he has "a library of research that he keeps on hand, mostly from PubMed, that backs up everything Dr D'Adamo says." To which the critic answers: "You say you have a library of research from PubMed to back up the blood type diet claims. Bring it on. I searched MEDLINE and didn't find any articles on the blood type diet..."

So, to be honest, I'm a bit sceptic of the sceptic view, but this is confusing. It seems to be one man's word against another's, one saying he's got hundreds of articles in support, other saying he found none "from the same source!)There are so many diets out there, and everyone seems to be able to prove their own "scientifically"...

I would love to hear views about this, about BOTH of these webpages (the sceptic's article and the comment page)... my questions are:

Didn't D'Adamo research the influence on different lectins from loads of different food himself to the different blood types, in lab settings? Did he do it on HUMAN BLOOD or on animals??

Has OTHER researcher's findings supported BTD theory, or is it just D'Adamos own research?

If so, where could I find these findings published by others than himself, if I would want to study them for myself?

Where can I find studies that have findings CONTRADICTING the BTDtheory?

Just an example ... check the bottom of the article ... full of scientific references ...

:)

Posted by: Dr. D, Thursday, April 26, 2012, 9:17am; Reply: 2

Let's address a bit of intellectual dishonesty here...

First there is this:

Quoted Text

Basicly it was very sceptic and claimed there's been no findings in the medical science and literature that would support the assumptions the blood type diet rests on.

Then there is this:

Quoted Text

To which the critic answers: "You say you have a library of research from PubMed to back up the blood type diet claims. Bring it on. I searched MEDLINE and didn't find any articles on the blood type diet..."

So on one hand they claim these is no scientific basis and the then subsequently equate this with the fact that there are no direct studies on the diets. This is where the dishonesty occurs, as they are two separate accusations.

There is an enormous literature on the effect of our blood groups and secretor status on the digestive tract and systemic effects on health. Try my blog for starters.

There is also a paucity of direct research on the blood type diet itself. But these are two separate issues and they should be more honest about that instead of simply moving the goal posts when it fits their biases. Anything in science can still be scientifically-based without having a large evidence basis. Many common drugs have minimal proof behind their efficacy/ mode of actions, but they've been used for years, they work, and because they are generics nobody wants to spend anymore money on them.

When the skeptic dictionary guys well-poison from laziness or prejudice against the fact that someone in alternative medicine might have actually discovered something useful, they also discourage other investigators from examining the hypothesis, which if you ask me, is exactly their goal.

Posted by: Goldie, Thursday, April 26, 2012, 11:37am; Reply: 3

Skeptics - here - have ONE OBLIGATION to honestly try each item on and in their OWN BODY.

Dr. D goes through the above mentioned types of 'considerations' by nameless unscientific types at least once a month.. He keeps the emotions to a minimum as HE is the scientist 'hiding' behind this mountain of work. He is the one, who year after year has added to his life time of work and ever more, refined his decrees to which hundreds of scientists 'here' attest to. Dr D'Adamo allows for INDIVIDUAL exceptions, like for instance- one item on me might give me a rash if I eat it every day, but not if I eat it once a year. He also allows for INDIVIDUAL preferences and life style, dietetic religious, cultural differences and for that matter political and scientific differences, making the THEORETICAL / EMPIRICAL science adaptable to each INDIVIDUAL person with his own age related health needs.

The questions should never be does it work... Atom bombs work, should we use them every other day to prove it? or just having tested them many times before, should we accept the fact that they work? Our foods here 'own' the same PRINCIPAL.

The LATEST food group VALUE is set in Swami even while all the old books are still worthwhile teaching tools and can still stand alone.

Swami requires some sophistication on the READERS part. The reader has to be able to use a (preferred) metric meter (easy in Finland- not so in UK or USA) to be most accurate. He has to have the ability to be honest and make distinctions even if they go against his previous believe system. He has to read pages and pages of introduction material and then go and read more AND evaluate differences of what is being said, or suggested. The reader has to think.

Researchers have to have time to do this, and those who take time have documented their findings many times here on this very chat board. Researchers here are not biased, not paid, and have no political affiliation. Researchers, scientific types and less so, have given time free andand and time again, have answered the question if the atom bomb would work in certain circumstances. They have questioned this or that (believe system) over and over for atomic USE in small disputes.. and sometimes even for USE in large arguments, territorial arguments,..... and always they come out on the side of those who say the BOMB works. Food works!

THE atom bomb HERE works without delay. HERE it can be measured by half smart people IMMEDIATELY. For SMART people the actual test is needed even more - the smart unbiased people are more argument loving and they can need more then one persons word for it. All the rest listen and learn and then take it a step further. They DECIDE for their own circumstance what is 'good' for them. They decide to surround themselves with people who have BEEN there, and learn to trust that one does not need to get CANCER (of the brain, nor the MIND) to PREVENT it.

THE smart people come here with open minds, they ask questions born out of their own EXPERIENCE and then weigh the answer. Sometimes the arguments are heated.. like when on O blood type wants to be a vegetarian, then there is a need for LONG PEACE tables. Suddenly the questions focus more on PHILOSOPHY than food. Suddenly Believe systems come into play and room has to be made to adjust. Religion is one such time that can cause differences. But always, there is great RESPECT here during all negotiations / questions raised / questions answered / learning happens. REAL learning / long lasting learning /life long adjustments happen.

By comparison, when someone has a deadly illness then the PEACE negation/negotiation table becomes very small. A few adjustment needed and many things get better again. A few specific boundaries set, limitations understood, and peace sets in. In the olden days onset of Diabetes meant that you where dead in 3 years. Today diabetes is a 'mere;' adjustment to a new life style. Today the specter of cancer even can be UNDERSTOOD through the Interpretation of the science of your Genes. Not the genes of your sophisticate/critics, but YOUR own family genes!

Then... add environment and your neighbors genes, and you quickly can see microscopical differences. My sister has the cancer gene, I do not. We do not share the same blood type. She can eat foods I can not, while I and my brother eat the same. Science - yes there is science in that - all YOU need to do is to put forth Questions and YOU will get answers. Make the question REAL. Make it pertinent to YOU and make it current. Proper answers will be forthcoming.

So what is the real question you wish to ask? Answers are free here? All honest to goodness questions will be addressed, and you will never be ignored, even if the question is only of peripheral value.

I have a few of my own.

DID you read any of the BOOKS? which one specifically? Why are you here? for health reasons? what kind. What is your genetic inheritance? Are you able to understand the writings and the needs for INDIVIDUAL adjustments?

As a B You have enormous advantages. I presume you are in perfect health at your age. Living in Finland I expect you are not overweight and that you use activities and sports on a daily basis. As a -B- what is your favorite food you might 'have to' give up? or will the mind be the issue most difficult to overcome?

Is the air in your (genetic) neighborhood fresh and does the wind blow cobwebs of scientific prejudice away even before the 'war' of stubbornness sets 'wrong' answers in stone? Will INTELLIGENT peace in knowledge remain? will you believe your body or who?

I wish some day to see your country, your Fiord's and your geographical wonders.

Your English is good enough to understand my innuendos.. and my 'unscientific' fun..

Posted by: Spring, Thursday, April 26, 2012, 12:26pm; Reply: 4

..."no findings in the medical science" Of course, "medical science" is not going to support anything that is directly in opposition to a good part of their modus operandi. Especially the part that makes them the most money. Too many of us have nearly lost our lives because of doctors following the dictates of "medical science." I have no patience whatsoever with the quoted statement above.

Posted by: SandrAruba, Thursday, April 26, 2012, 12:40pm; Reply: 5

Food is fuel for the body, so in the same way you don't but gasoline in a diesel engine car, you don't put meat in an A or wheat in an O. It clogs their pipes and their engine stalls.

Posted by: Damon, Friday, April 27, 2012, 9:57am; Reply: 6

Hi Kristoffer,

Just to let you hear a different noise; I have been following this diet for close to a year now, but am becoming more and more inclined to the belief that this approach is incorrect.. (sorry guys)

I do agree that our bodies are probably designed to do better on certain foods than on others (a matter of individuality), but the strict separation proposed by this diet just seems inappropriate IMHO.

I am a 'Warrior' and should consequently stay away from all red meats. Still, I notice that after months of totally avoiding all red meats (while still following a hugely varied diet, including plenty of [animal] protein), I truly crave some red meat. Yes, I actually feel good the days after eating some organic beef and to me its clear my body misses certain nutrients if I don't. Similarly, I have noticed no adverse reactions at all from consuming some other 'avoids', while some so-called 'superfoods' are not at all as 'super' for me.

I am not looking for a scientific discussion as I have seen these things pass by over and over again. I just wanted to share the personal experience from someone who gave it an honest try.

Still, some final thoughts;- I only recently realized that my canine teeth are huge and sharp; that logically seems a stronger determinant for dietary needs than e.g. one's bloodtype or fingerprints..- Surely our ancestral societies consisted of communities eating largely the same diets. Still, their bloodtypes would have been very varied.- I feel that following this diet (or any diet for that matter) creates a lot of mental stress, especially if you know you're consuming a meal with some avoid. I feel and know from personal experience that stress has a worse effect on your health than a 'possibly not so perfect diet'.

ps. let me add that concerning some aspects Dr D does seem to be right; as in that type Os do better in the gym, and that type As do well on yoga. It may well be that type Os do better on meat than type As, and that type Os are more frequent celiacs. Still in my experience there seem to exist as much 'inaccurateness' as 'correctness' in this diet..

Posted by: Dr. D, Friday, April 27, 2012, 10:48am; Reply: 7

Damon,

Although I understand that your post is the result of your experiences, I'm not sure that it really makes the theory any more or less 'scientific.' I think this blog can help to explain why.

Something that is tried by 6 million people that helps 4.5 million may still not help 1.5 million. However unlike giving pregnant mothers thalidomide, with diet choices we really sacrifice very little to discover whether the probabilities are with us or against us.

Difficulty arises when we use day-to-day experience as the substitute for what are often suggested interventions with long anticipatory lag-times. For example, we know smoking is bad based on epidemiologic studies, but most people say that they enjoy smoking and it makes them feel better.

However I respect your observations and the time you've devoted to the system, so know that I am not disagreeing with you or even suggesting that you continue with the program. Everyone must make their own way though life.

Posted by: wrotek, Friday, April 27, 2012, 11:25am; Reply: 8

What I am intrested in is how You can take a food, make extract(solution) from it and then test it in a petridish ?

Posted by: Andrea AWsec, Friday, April 27, 2012, 11:40am; Reply: 9

Research a bit on lectins--- and you will learn how foods are tested. Petri dishes are used for cultures--

This answer cuts through all the Q and A.. and if it convinces someone then good, if not , there is nothing lost but 2 seconds to post this link..

Posted by: Joyce, Friday, April 27, 2012, 2:44pm; Reply: 11

Damon,

Have you had your BT rechecked, even given blood for example?

I only ask because I do wonder sometimes about non-secretors who don't find the BTD/GTD helpful - if the basic ABO is incorrect then a saliva test will surely show up as non-secretor ??)

Just my thoughts :)

Joyce

Posted by: RedLilac, Friday, April 27, 2012, 2:49pm; Reply: 12

There are just some people no matter what you present, they have a closed mind and state that this diet is not scientific or peer reviewed. A BTD follower posted about our diet on a scientific forum and no matter what he presented it was shot down. They just won’t listen. I just hope slowly but surely someday Dr. D will be vindicated. In the meantime, those of us who do believe in him will benefit from his knowledge and expertise.

Posted by: Damon, Friday, April 27, 2012, 4:09pm; Reply: 13

@ JoyceI have done two home tests, and one lab (blood)test; the results were unambiguous. The Warrior profile description (i.e. characteristics like facial flushing) actually describe me pretty well. That was also a reason I initially got convinced the BTD held some truth. I still do believe in the existence of different genotypes etc, but feel the dietary implications are far too exaggerated.

@ Dr DIn the n=1-article you mentioned you state:

Quoted Text

... the data showed one particularly interesting trend: the 80/20 percentage was consistent across the groups. In other words, 80% of the type Os claimed the diet was beneficial, as did 80% of the Bs, 80% of the As, etc. Now as anyone who has read even the basic book can tell you, the A diet looks nothing like the O diet.

Let me respond to this claim from a critic's point of view;

You claim the uniformity of the 80% success rate strongly supports the relevance of the BTD. I believe this proves nothing. In fact, it is the other way around; the uniformity implies that the bloodtype specific recommendations really are totally irrelevant.

The point is; all bloodtypes are recommended to cut out universally bad foods (like fastfood, pastries, soda, etc.), reduce sugar intake, focus on unprocessed foods, and eat a more balanced, vegetable rich diet. Of course these 'general improvements' will improve anyone's health. Now think about it, if these general improvements are the only relevant dietary factors (i.e. if it doesn't matter whether you get your protein from organic beef, tofu, dairy or beans), then one would indeed expect a uniform success percentage across all bloodtypes!

You should do an experiment in which 50% of the partipants are (unknowingly) put on the 'wrong' diet. Only then success percentages and uniformity becomes relevant IMO.

@ RedLilacSimilarly, BTD followers should always have an open mind to what 'critics' have to say.

Posted by: paul clucas, Friday, April 27, 2012, 4:42pm; Reply: 14

The Blood Type Diet is clearly not reductionist - especially in terms of animal protein varieties and the balance of the different food categories.

Comparing the effects of diets is a good starting point. The most pressing question is: What monolithic (one-size-fits-all) diet claims to have noticeably positive effects in about 80% of cases?

After someone has found such a diet, we can then compare the degree of unusual and powerful effects that the Blood Type Diet has been reported to make against those of this other diet.

The sheer variety of positive effects of the Blood Type Diet is hard to explain with the assumptions that form the basis for most medical practitioners. The difference in the world views could be compare as Mono-typic vs Poly-typic.

The fact that people can follow quite different Blood Type Diets and achieve the same result should push us towards abandoning the base assumption of all of modern allopathic medicine: that any medical variation between people can be accurately described by a normal distribution with one mean.

Medical reports by allopathic researchers, ironically, verify that some important factors related to digestion are distributed in a pattern that can be only descibed by multiple normal distributions, segregated by simple genetic factors, with means that about nine standard deviations apart.

We can abandon the “Mono-typic” assumption of modern medicine but keep the knowledge, which the body of work as a whole, offers us.

Posted by: gardengirl, Friday, April 27, 2012, 4:53pm; Reply: 15

My personal experience is SWAMI isn't working for me, GTD and BTD weren't great for me either. The Arthritis BTD Diet does work for me although there were a couple of things I had to omit but, overall, works for me. With that said, I can't hate on the SWAMI, BTD and GTD because my body was a very damaged state. I am almost 100% and may try my SWAMI again in a couple of months, not sure yet. As far as medical journals go, you will never find support for full natural therapies as it is pharmaceutical funded. I personally got off all my DMARD medications and anti-inflammatories just by changing my diet. I went from unable to turn a door knob to lifting a stack of dishes with one hand, doing regular HIIT workouts, pushups, etc. I am all for an all natural diet that promotes regular exercise and if I have to try them all to see what works for me, then, so be it. I have also seen a lot of people on the forum who have had excellent results and I do enjoy reading their stories.

Posted by: DoS, Friday, April 27, 2012, 5:22pm; Reply: 16

People are always confused when I ask if things are scientific before I buy into them. My Yoga instructor gave me a really strange look. Once I got refused service at a coffee shop when I asked if the herbal mocha ginseng tea was scientific... People just don't understand my need for scientificity. They don't understand how important it is that things are scientific, the weight of it all.

Posted by: Spring, Friday, April 27, 2012, 5:28pm; Reply: 17

Similarly, BTD followers should always have an open mind to what 'critics' have to say.Oh, we had an "open mind" about several different diets and opinions out there - probably going back to before you were born. The point is, we were disappointed in every single one of them and ALL the advice from ALL doctors as to what we should or should not do! SOME doctors are getting part of the message today simply because the Baby Boomers are demanding eternal youth on a platter and mean to get it one way or another, and they are smart enough to know that the general way of eating is NOT working!! And some of them are getting the message that ONE DIET DOES NOT FIT EVERYONE! Oh, yes, we've been going 'round this issue for a very long time! Oh, and FYI, I am older than the Baby Boomers!

People are always confused when I ask if things are scientific before I buy into them. My Yoga instructor gave me a really strange look. Once I got refused service at a coffee shop when I asked if the herbal mocha ginseng tea was scientific... People just don't understand my need for scientificity. They don't understand how important it is that things are scientific, the weight of it all.

I guess I would have the same reaction as the people referenced here... You may need to be more specific in your questions to get answers... What answer would you expect from the question, "Is the herbal mocha ginseng tea scientific?"

Is it reasonable to expect a coffee shop waitress to be able to provide a scientific explanation from a PhD perspective? ... and is she being paid to spend the time it would take to provide such an explanation? She is probably wondering what kind of a nut would ask such a question, when all she wants to do is provide you with whatever you want to eat and drink... It is up to you to know if the drink is "scientific" enough for you to order it or not.

Posted by: 18545 (Guest), Friday, April 27, 2012, 6:14pm; Reply: 19

I like how creepy the diet is. Wait, how did U know I couldn't eat that? *looks around* {{{creepy}}}

It's like someone is following me around watching! :B

Posted by: Spring, Friday, April 27, 2012, 7:07pm; Reply: 20

Quoted from 18545

I like how creepy the diet is. Wait, how did U know I couldn't eat that? *looks around* {{{creepy}}}

It's like someone is following me around watching! :B

LOL I like that part too! But most of the time it is like someone read my mind and agreed with me!! Still sort of "creepy!" But a good creep!

Posted by: Lin, Friday, April 27, 2012, 7:07pm; Reply: 21

I think it is very healthy that these discussions can be had, and that everyone takes time to really think about how the diet is or isn't working for them. I think I've read enough testimonies on here to be people's recovery or improvements to believe that there is a lot to be recommended to following one of the blood type diets. As a woman I know when I was younger those monthly cravings for chocolate was for something in the chocolate that I could have got through another source. Perhaps a craving for beef is a sign that there is something in beef that is missing from Damon's diet?

Posted by: Dr. D, Friday, April 27, 2012, 9:16pm; Reply: 22

Quoted Text

You should do an experiment in which 50% of the partipants are (unknowingly) put on the 'wrong' diet. Only then success percentages and uniformity becomes relevant IMO.

The last paragraph in the blog says that the most common issue with non-responders is that they have their ABO type wrong. This is a common finding in our clinic as well. That should fit your concept of a wrong diet.

Also bear in mind than many people start out the BTD/GTD already on a nice healthy diet. Here is a guy on a super healthy diet that did nothing for him.

Kristoffer:How about trying the diet for a few months & see what happens? Make sure you know your blood type for sure & find out if you are a non-secretor.

Then go back to eating foods that are bad for your type & see the reactions?

If you find you think the diet has some merit but are not ready to commit yourself to it, try to avoid the worst foods for your type like dairy & wheat for O; red meat & dairy for A; chicken & corn for B, etc.

The last paragraph in the blog says that the most common issue with non-responders is that they have their ABO type wrong. This is a common finding in our clinic as well. That should fit your concept of a wrong diet.

So if person is typed wrong, can he die from wrong transfusion ?50% error is a lot when we are talking about life and death.Mine blood was typed in a hospital, hope they did a good job

Having followed the diet very strictly for over a year, I saw very little difference. In fact, some of my blood tests actually got worse. I fully admit that I started a medication which could have negatively affected my blood tests, however, the main reason I went on the BTD/GTD was to reduce my blood pressure and cholesterol. Unfortunately, neither of these were positively impacted by the diet.

What I have come to lately is more balance in my diet. If I want dairy, I try to eat only the best quality dairy, like yogurt rich in probiotics and I don't eat it all the time. If I want wheat, I try to eat whole grain bread from a local bakery as opposed to mass-produced bread. If I go out to a restaurant, I try to order something that keeps me mostly compliant. I don't cheat all the time mostly because the habits instilled with following the BTD/GTD are well ingrained in me by now.

I still eat organic fruits and veggies, wild-caught fish and grass-fed meat. However, I have stopped worrying about the negative impacts of a few high-quality cheats here and there. This balance helps to reduce stress that can be a part of any strict diet.

I would also like to remind folks that because of my rare blood antigen, I am considered a minor blood group. And yes, I have had my blood type tested and retested - first by the Army and second by the American Red Cross - because of my rare blood antigen. It is my understanding that lectin theory has NOT been tested on the minor blood groups, so the lectin theory is applied with a broad brush to the major blood groups, which makes sense.

I think maybe I fall into that 20% rule and I am glad to know that the 80/20 rule applies because it explains a lot in my case.

Posted by: Spring, Saturday, April 28, 2012, 5:39pm; Reply: 28

I remember a noted nutritionist saying that in her practice she would not even attempt to write a diet for anyone on a diuretic. Other drugs can mess things up almost as bad. Or even an overload of certain supplements.....

I remember a noted nutritionist saying that in her practice she would not even attempt to write a diet for anyone on a diuretic. Other drugs can mess things up almost as bad. Or even an overload of certain supplements.....

Dr. Nash was able to incorporate my use of the prescribed diuretic to counter the negative side effects of it. Fortunately, with exercise, I was able to lower my blood pressure and come off the diuretic. However, my cholesterol went right back to the same values as before I began taking it, despite following the diet.

Also, living with a household of all O's, I believe that my husband and daughter fit much more neatly into the typical type O 80% rule. Our daughter was recently diagnosed with gluten intolerance and coffee intolerance. My husband has had psoriasis or some other skin rash for years. He also has had two joints replaced due to arthritis. The jury is still out on our son. Funny thing is though, our daughter does have my rare blood antigen, but she is a secretor, like her dad.

Posted by: Chloe, Saturday, April 28, 2012, 8:46pm; Reply: 30

I think defining the term "scientific" needs to be properly understood. "Science" isn't provable.I found this article interesting:

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true. Here's a closer look at these important, commonly misused terms.

HypothesisA hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.

TheoryA scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

LawA law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

This all goes back to the issue of people reading old lies, old mis-informed, piss poor journalism floating around. It gets repeated like it is common knowledge only a fool wouldn't know... Not that long ago people would of scoffed at you if you claimed birds migrated; you where just wrong everyone knew they hibernated underground.

Reality is while not proven using all standards possible, the conclusion end to create applicable treatment is substantiated by a lot of information. Ignoring this information to exists, and claiming there for the BTD/GTD work is just pulled out of thin air, is "like your opinion, maannn"; not anything we could consider relevant to temporal reality.

Posted by: Dr. D, Sunday, April 29, 2012, 10:28am; Reply: 32

Science is a way of thinking and investigation. Something is 'scientific' if it follows these prescribed methods; it is not some sort of label you give or take away from something based upon your opinion or level of understanding.

Having followed the diet very strictly for over a year, I saw very little difference. In fact, some of my blood tests actually got worse.

Back in ER4YT I read, and I take it as a rule, that in compliance, it takes the body 1 month for each non-compliant year of life to rehab. 8)

Posted by: NancyEllen, Sunday, April 29, 2012, 1:50pm; Reply: 34

Well that will be 4 and a half years of compliance for me, Yaeli! :)

Posted by: yaeli, Sunday, April 29, 2012, 1:58pm; Reply: 35

Compliant and Happy! :D

Posted by: Maus, Sunday, April 29, 2012, 7:07pm; Reply: 36

I used to worry about that too. Because every diet out there has their scientific proof. But after a while going back and forth to other diets plans or no diet plans, I keep finding more and more points that this diet plan keeps hitting the nail on its head. My body feels best with this diet. At the very least it can't hurt to give it a try.

I used to worry about that too. Because every diet out there has their scientific proof. But after a while going back and forth to other diets plans or no diet plans, I keep finding more and more points that this diet plan keeps hitting the nail on its head. My body feels best with this diet. At the very least it can't hurt to give it a try.

Can I please ask you to be specific. Which diets are you speaking about that are scientifically proven? Proven to do what?

Posted by: Eric, Monday, April 30, 2012, 9:39am; Reply: 38

As a skeptic by nature and a strong advocate of the BTD, I find this sort of conversation exhilarating :)

I don't want to say too much about the documentary, but Steven Novella, one of the world's top skeptics, has agreed to an interview to discuss his views on naturopathic medicine. I think instead of fearing these people, we should embrace them and guide them toward relevant information. We may not convince them over night, but it'll surely happen faster by opening up the subject for rational debate.

Just my take.

Posted by: grey rabbit, Monday, April 30, 2012, 11:44am; Reply: 39

The science behind many fad diets is the first law of thermodynamics, it is difficult to get over that and realize there is more to it. One of the great videos that's gone viral lately is this one, where Dr. Lustig explains why the first law of thermodynamics does not apply to the consumption of food.

I used the GenoType Diet to develop a "Health Improvement Plan" for my nutrition class. I was very impressed with how the plan completed all the essential nutrient requirements with ease. I also received a 100% on the semester long project, my professor was equally impressed.

This diet has been easy to follow, has provided me with great health (my CBC came back with very impressive #s) and I feel that the "proof is in the pudding".

Posted by: Jane, Monday, April 30, 2012, 4:43pm; Reply: 40

When I first came to the BTD back in the mid 90s, I was really sick. I had just been diagnosed with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (ulcerative colitis) and my gastroenterologist had me on a diet that was basically white bread and some meat....no veggies or or fruits or even juices....I found the BTD and never looked back. I eat all kinds of veggies and clean meats and NO white bread. My symptoms, which were quite severe at the time have been held in check. All I know is that it works. I'm probably not the most compliant of followers. I eat way too much cheese (even if it is goat cheese) and don't follow portions as much as I should. I also eat too many eggs too. I never eat wheat (and for the past year or so any other gluten), try to avoid corn to the best of my ability....it may sneak in on the occasion that I'm out to dinner with friends or family, and always buy the cleanest meat and veggies that I can afford. From my perspective, the proof is in the pudding - it works!

I have done two home tests, and one lab (blood)test; the results were unambiguous. The Warrior profile description (i.e. characteristics like facial flushing) actually describe me pretty well. That was also a reason I initially got convinced the BTD held some truth. I still do believe in the existence of different genotypes etc, but feel the dietary implications are far too exaggerated.

Damon, You should determine by measuring if you are a Warrior or not, not go by the description. Furthermore as a Warrior you are allowed lamb which is red meat. I eat it every now and then.

I do believe that an A can also be an explorer which has some meat in their diet. I am not sure about the Genotype, but someone else here will surely know. So perhaps you are not a Warrior. Redo the measurements with someone to assist you perhaps you typed yourself wrong (especially if you only went by the description).

I do believe that an A can also be an explorer which has some meat in their diet. I am not sure about the Genotype, but someone else here will surely know.

Type A can be Teacher, Warrior, or Explorer Genotypes. Yes, Teacher and Explorer generally get more meat than Warrior.

Posted by: DoS, Monday, April 30, 2012, 7:34pm; Reply: 44

I've never seen a study that shows that the FDA food pyramid (thing) conclusively provides health for everyone, to the extent which people are asking the BTD/GTD be tested. Maybe it is out there and I am ignorant of it, but it appears to be assembled in the same manner as the BTD/GTD; based on what we do know, not what we've proven.

Maybe it is just me, but the weight of that idea is astronomical to me.

Posted by: Patty H, Monday, April 30, 2012, 8:03pm; Reply: 45

I think the entire argument is ridiculous. What diet out there has had double blind studies performed comparing the specific diet to another way of eating and measuring the health improvements of the people involved?

I don't think any of the current list of popular diets can claim that they have been scientifically studied to be superior to other diet theories.

Is the same argument used to discredit the Paleo Diet? The Atkins Diet? The Scarsdale Diet? The Rosedale Diet? The Primal Diet? The Perfect Gene Diet? The list goes on and on of diets that have not been scientifically studied. Nor can one argue that these diets don't have some scientific basis behind them.

The back cover of The Dash Diet states that it was developed through research entitled the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) and was sponsored by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The ironic thing is that this diet allows the dieter to eat things like Wheaties, All-Bran cereal and other low sugar/high fiber cereals, pasta, frozen pizza crusts, corn or flour tortillas, margarine, artificially sweetened yogurt, egg substitutes, etc.

Does this diet, which has been sponsored by the National Institutes of Health look healthy to any of you?

Damon, You should determine by measuring if you are a Warrior or not, not go by the description. Furthermore as a Warrior you are allowed lamb which is red meat. I eat it every now and then.

I do believe that an A can also be an explorer which has some meat in their diet. I am not sure about the Genotype, but someone else here will surely know. So perhaps you are not a Warrior. Redo the measurements with someone to assist you perhaps you typed yourself wrong (especially if you only went by the description).

Also knowing secretor status is important. Many meats that are avoid for secretors become neutral if a person is a non-secretor. And non-secretors are recommended a greater frequency per week. This is just the BTD, not even taking into account what the genotype is.

It's really necessary to do the detailed measurements in order to know what ones' genotype is. Otherwise guesswork can play tricks. ;)

I think the entire argument is ridiculous. What diet out there has had double blind studies performed comparing the specific diet to another way of eating and measuring the health improvements of the people involved?

That is my point... I'm not sure that any FDA/government approved "diet" has even gone through those rigors, in its entirety.

Damon, You should determine by measuring if you are a Warrior or not, not go by the description. Furthermore as a Warrior you are allowed lamb which is red meat. I eat it every now and then.

I do believe that an A can also be an explorer which has some meat in their diet. I am not sure about the Genotype, but someone else here will surely know. So perhaps you are not a Warrior. Redo the measurements with someone to assist you perhaps you typed yourself wrong (especially if you only went by the description).

Yes, this Explorer can have lamb on SWAMI, which I enjoy very much!

Posted by: Damon, Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 10:06am; Reply: 49

Comments referring to the notion that "it is totally irrelevant whether the basis for the BTD is scientifically proven" and that "the proof is in the pudding" are not appropriate IMO. The topic starter is not without reason asking for reference to a scientific basis. The BTD is a 'lifestyle diet' and not simply a 'lose weight (quick) diet'. Since it involves some drastic lifestyle changes, it is pretty logical that someone would want to see some proper scientific evidence before given it a shot. And for all those who have already found their proof in their pudding; what if not all (sometimes very drastic) dietary rules you are following are necessary? Wouldn't you want to know that?? Also note that most of the people making these comments are following SWAMI (or at least the GTD). Especially SWAMI is far more advanced than the BTD, and incorporates a lot of factors (which are properly scientifically proven), in addition to the basic BTD 'lectin-stuff'.

As mentioned in my prior posts, I don't intend to claim the BTD, GTD and/or SWAMI don't work; but in response to the opening post of this topic, and the many positive replies of you 'believers' (no pun intended), I do want to ring a different noise. It is not that I don't believe in genotypes etc., but I do want to point out (especially towards the topic starter) that there are people like me who have not found the proof in their pudding and who believe that some core aspects of the BTD may well be wrong or exaggerated.

Let's get back to the scientific discussion, and mind you, I am definitely open to being convinced. :) As mentioned before there is little scientific about the 80% overall success rate. Sure there are lots of lectin-related studies as provided via Andrea's URL, but I would call these studies circumstantial. Where are the studies that specifically look at a type A's blood agglutination pre and post a beef-potato-bellpepper-meal? I feel that if the BTD would be considered sufficiently scientifically proven, Dr D should surely have received a Nobel prize. (And no, I don't believe in a large conspiracy against Dr D.)

Also think about this; all humans, regardless of blood type, cultural background, or diet histories have the same basic gut design, dentition (number and type of teeth, type of enamel), type of saliva and digestive enzymes. This is why we call them humans. Inuits have lived for millennia on 90% meat diets, Chinese for millennia on 90% plant food diets. Still there are no anatomical, physiological, or biochemical differences between Chinese and Eskimos. Nor are there any such differences between people with A-type and O-type blood.

So, do I think Dr D doesn't offer value to us customers? No. Especially SWAMI is very valuable, but IMO likely not because of the bloodtype-based dietary advice, but because of the numerous other dietary considerations included in SWAMI (e.g. think of specific organ support, chemical/pesticide/hormone content of individual foods, the completeness of the nutritional profile, etc.)

Finally, for everyone's information; I (used to) follow SWAMI myself, and can assure you I have filled in the input form to perfection. Also, the reason that I started following this diet in the first place is health- and not weight-related. Yes I felt OK on the diet, but my pudding teached me that I feel better when structurally bending some rules. This has made me question the appropriateness of those rules.

Posted by: grey rabbit, Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 12:19pm; Reply: 50

80% is statistically significant. Yes there are Physiological differences between the Inuit and the Chinese. Yes there are differences in gut flora between type Os and type As. A study on the affect of a meal of beef, potato, bell pepper would not be scientific, you have too many variables there.

I agree that swami is better than the basic BTD.

Until there is a controlled study, you will not be satisfied with anything any of us has to say. A scientific study of the BTD would be ridiculously expensive and is probably not going to happen. So, if it isn't working for you, maybe you need to find something else.

Comments referring to the notion that "it is totally irrelevant whether the basis for the BTD is scientifically proven" and that "the proof is in the pudding" are not appropriate IMO. The topic starter is not without reason asking for reference to a scientific basis. The BTD is a 'lifestyle diet' and not simply a 'lose weight (quick) diet'. Since it involves some drastic lifestyle changes, it is pretty logical that someone would want to see some proper scientific evidence before given it a shot. And for all those who have already found their proof in their pudding; what if not all (sometimes very drastic) dietary rules you are following are necessary? Wouldn't you want to know that?? Also note that most of the people making these comments are following SWAMI (or at least the GTD). Especially SWAMI is far more advanced than the BTD, and incorporates a lot of factors (which are properly scientifically proven), in addition to the basic BTD 'lectin-stuff'.

As mentioned in my prior posts, I don't intend to claim the BTD, GTD and/or SWAMI don't work; but in response to the opening post of this topic, and the many positive replies of you 'believers' (no pun intended), I do want to ring a different noise. It is not that I don't believe in genotypes etc., but I do want to point out (especially towards the topic starter) that there are people like me who have not found the proof in their pudding and who believe that some core aspects of the BTD may well be wrong or exaggerated.

Let's get back to the scientific discussion, and mind you, I am definitely open to being convinced. :) As mentioned before there is little scientific about the 80% overall success rate. Sure there are lots of lectin-related studies as provided via Andrea's URL, but I would call these studies circumstantial. Where are the studies that specifically look at a type A's blood agglutination pre and post a beef-potato-bellpepper-meal? I feel that if the BTD would be considered sufficiently scientifically proven, Dr D should surely have received a Nobel prize. (And no, I don't believe in a large conspiracy against Dr D.)

Also think about this; all humans, regardless of blood type, cultural background, or diet histories have the same basic gut design, dentition (number and type of teeth, type of enamel), type of saliva and digestive enzymes. This is why we call them humans. Inuits have lived for millennia on 90% meat diets, Chinese for millennia on 90% plant food diets. Still there are no anatomical, physiological, or biochemical differences between Chinese and Eskimos. Nor are there any such differences between people with A-type and O-type blood.

So, do I think Dr D doesn't offer value to us customers? No. Especially SWAMI is very valuable, but IMO likely not because of the bloodtype-based dietary advice, but because of the numerous other dietary considerations included in SWAMI (e.g. think of specific organ support, chemical/pesticide/hormone content of individual foods, the completeness of the nutritional profile, etc.)

Finally, for everyone's information; I (used to) follow SWAMI myself, and can assure you I have filled in the input form to perfection. Also, the reason that I started following this diet in the first place is health- and not weight-related. Yes I felt OK on the diet, but my pudding teached me that I feel better when structurally bending some rules. This has made me question the appropriateness of those rules.

Damon, I think I will have to respectfully disagree with you here. I believe that some of the other diets I referenced in my earlier post are also health driven and not just weight driven. A perfect example of this is The Perfect Gene Diet. This diet was specifically developed as a way to avoid Alzheimer's disease and heart issues and recommends that the "dieter" get genetic testing to determine their genes that impact those diseases.

The Atkins Diet goes into great detail about hypoglycemia and diabetes as does The Rosedale Diet.

If we look at all of the popular diet books out there, they are written either by health care practitioners, whether they be M.D.'s, N.D.'s, N.P.'s, nutritionists and/or people who have achieved great success in sports and have become trainers of other athletes. Most books are based on the author's clinical experience with patients and/or clients. However, I believe that all of these authors have read and researched extensively, looking at health studies and other related available information and connected the dots to enhance the effectiveness of their theories for the benefit of their patients/clients/readers.

Aside from The Dash Diet I referenced in my earlier post, can you name any other diet that has under gone the rigors of a double-blind study? Who would fund that? I'm not even sure The Dash Diet under went that type of rigorous study, despite being sponsored by The National Institutes of Health. :o

Remember, too, that I said I also fall more into the 20% rule - but I still see the value of the diet for the 80%, including my husband and daughter.

Yes there are Physiological differences between the Inuit and the Chinese. Yes there are differences in gut flora between type Os and type As.

I was referring to substantial dietary physiological differences. There are no differences between the enzymes their bodies produce, the type of teeth they chew their food with, between the length of their digestive tracts, etc. Isn't it weird that Warriors and Hunters are equal in these respects?

A study on the affect of a meal of beef, potato, bell pepper would not be scientific, you have too many variables there.

How can you claim this would be unscientific due to 'too many variables' while you previously (although inappropriately) called the 80% success rate statistically scientific? That concerned a complete diet with far more variables than 1 simple meal.

It should be fairly easy for Dr D to just post a before and after picture of the blood agglutination in such a simple experiment.

Until there is a controlled study, you will not be satisfied with anything any of us has to say. A scientific study of the BTD would be ridiculously expensive and is probably not going to happen. So, if it isn't working for you, maybe you need to find something else.

You react as if I am in the wrong thread, and as if I have personally attacked you. Note that this thread is about the scientific evidence behind the BTD. I am just ventilating my (in your opinion: 'negative') view about the BTD, as counterweight to the overwhelming amount of positive replies other members already submitted to this topic. I feel all those positive opinions might leave the topic starter (and future users who coincidentally stumble upon this thread) with an incorrect/biased conclusion. (Since users for whom the diet doesn't turn out to work just leave these forums after a while, there logically appears an inproportional large number of 'positive users' in threads like these.)

@ PattyThanks for your thoughtful response. I am not familiar with the diets you mentioned, but must admit that some sound rather lifestyle-changing. But, these forums aren't about those diets. Here it is all and only about the BTD (and GTD + SWAMI). Again, I am not saying Dr D's diets don't help people or are not worth the money, but I am questioning (a part of) the scientific base underlying these diets, the BTD in particular. As long as no official double-blind study has been performed on this diet, but the only scientific support are these circumstantial lectin-studies, I don't feel the diet can be called very scientific. But this argument applies to any other diet when trying to answer the question "is this diet scientific?"

Like I already said to greyrabbit above, I am just trying to provide the topic starter with a more balanced view than the average 'everything is perfect and great'-comment.

Posted by: 18545 (Guest), Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 2:24pm; Reply: 53

So what diet out there is scientifically proven? It would be good to have that information so the scientifically proven diet could be compared to the scientifically unproven diet that works for many on these forums. That way all of us who desire could be teached as good as you.

Posted by: 14442 (Guest), Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 2:43pm; Reply: 54

From all I have read people can lose weight on anything, or so goes the "calories in/calories out" theory. In the end, health is an individual matter- what people want to eat is really up to them. But yes there does appear to be both scientific and anecdotal evidence for blood type which you would think many people would know just intuitively ie whether they are allergic to dairy or grains or whatever- isn't this the kind of thing you just sort of know once you get past 20 years old?

Posted by: Spring, Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 2:47pm; Reply: 55

Code

that there are people like me who have not found the proof in their pudding and who believe that some core aspects of the BTD may well be wrong or exaggerated.

This is a strange thread IMO. For someone looking for scientific, irrefutable proof of anything, it seems puzzling, to say the least, for them to be on a general forum such as this looking for answers to their questions!

We are aware that there are people who would almost swear that they are following a diet to the letter, but there is hardly anyone that actually does that. For instance, Dr. D. makes it clear that foods should be as pure as absolutely possible. Does everyone adhere to that to the letter? Of course, not! Many cannot afford it, for instance, but that does not mean that they can't get tremendous help from the diet!

Unless people are locked in a building, in separate rooms and given every single item that they are exposed to, both inside their bodies and out, for a given amount of time, there is no way that anything can actually be proven. I laugh when I read about such and such trials being done going by what people say they have done. What a joke! Not worth giving the time of day. And much of what the general public is fed on a regular basis is based on this sort of junk "science."

Many of us had unique health issues when we first heard about this diet, and a first reading of only parts of one or more of the various books, made total sense to us. When I saw that A-Types should avoid beef in the BTD book, it was exactly like a bright light went on for me. Who ever heard of such a thing, but it make perfect sense! It was just dawning on me already that beef was doing a really bad number on me. Not the usual symptoms that other family members suffered from eating beef, but intense pain in my feet and legs about twenty minutes after I ate it.

Most of the people I have listened to or read about who have not responded as well as they would like to the various diets had or have health issues that needed to be addressed. Some people can't digest what they eat no matter how pure and wonderful the food is. Some people have a body full of Candidiasis that is slowly killing them. Some with bodies full of inflammation, etc.. There are numerous other issues that need to be dealt with sometimes before the diet can fully bring about the desired benefits. Thankfully, I had already been on a program for nearly nine years to get rid of Candidiasis and able to return to some semblance of health before I heard about this way of dieting.

Anyway, going by what I already know, I think the purpose and intent of this thread will NEVER be satisfied! But I am!! And what I "believe" is what I know from my own experience with the diets, and that is good enough for me! (sunny)

Posted by: ruthiegirl, Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 7:06pm; Reply: 56

Quoted Text

Also think about this; all humans, regardless of blood type, cultural background, or diet histories have the same basic gut design, dentition (number and type of teeth, type of enamel), type of saliva and digestive enzymes. This is why we call them humans. Inuits have lived for millennia on 90% meat diets, Chinese for millennia on 90% plant food diets. Still there are no anatomical, physiological, or biochemical differences between Chinese and Eskimos. Nor are there any such differences between people with A-type and O-type blood.

There are differences in digestive enzymes between different blood types. O's have more stomach acid and A's have less, with Bs and ABs somewhere in between. So I agree with you that there are no anatomical differences between different blood types, but I disagree with the physiological and biochemical differences.

Also, bear in mind that people may "survive" on a certain diet, but that's different from "thriving" on one. As long as people live long enough to bear children and raise them to adulthood, the culture won't die out. If kids get married and start families right after puberty, you only need to live to 40 or 50 to keep the society going, and you don't need to be energetic, healthy, or pain-free that whole time either.

Therefore, the argument "people have been eating this food for generations" is not a valid proof that the food is healthy.

Posted by: Dr. D, Wednesday, May 2, 2012, 10:28am; Reply: 57

Quoted Text

This claim makes no sense. Do you know what statistical significance means? (Any number can be statistically significant; it all depends on the number's standard deviation and what it is compared to.

This is correct, but one needs to remember that the 80-20 rule here is being applied uniformly across three diets that are quite distinctly different that each other.

Here Damon, I must reject your hypothesis that the improvements are the result of the notion that 'the diets are all fundamentally healthy' and produce generalized improvements independent of being personalized to ABO type. They are in fact quite different: dairy for type B, meat for type O and plant proteins including soy for type A. In each case someone has written a book or concocted a theory in support or attack of any and all of these suggestions.

These results would seem distinct enough to suggest that the 80-20 rule would very unlikely extend across the different types and different diets. In discussions with statisticians, I have been assured that, if accurate (remember these are self-reported and do suffer from confirmation bias) the null hypothesis would be of exceedingly low probability.

Posted by: Spring, Wednesday, May 2, 2012, 11:40am; Reply: 58

Quoted Text

the diets are all fundamentally healthy

I would just like (NOT!) to see how healthy I would be if I ate beef, pork and most dairy products on a regular basis!!! "Healthy" diet, my eye! The pain I would be suffering in my entire body would make life totally intolerable. And that is not even considering what several fruits, vegetables and many kinds of seafood would be doing to me. Tomato alone almost disables me. And NONE of those things are on my SWAMI diet!! This sort of thing doesn't just happen. No way.

Yep, I would be either dead or riding around in a wheel chair, taking prescription drugs by the cup full. We see this going on around us all the time.

Posted by: Damon, Wednesday, May 2, 2012, 11:51am; Reply: 59

Hi Dr D,

I must admit I can see your point. Still, playing the devil's advocate, I would say this does not proof the positive effect of basing one's diet on avoiding 'bad lectins' (i.e. there could be other reasons for people feeling uniformly better).However, let's just forget this point for now.

I do enormously appreciate your thoughts and feedback, and more importantly; the fact that you allow these threads to exist, and even participate in the discussion yourself. Of course the easy way out would be to just have this thread deleted and users like me blocked. ;)

Anyway, two final questions I would enormously appreciate your answer to;1) Why don't you simply post some pictures of the degree of blood agglutination of individuals, before and after them consuming some 'bad lectin'-rich meal? (e.g. a beef-potato-bellpepper meal for a type A; milk with cereals for a type O; etc.) Surely, this would be a relatively easy experiment, and I feel it would hugely help to reduce skepticism (mine included).2) Don't you agree that your diet is in essence so controversial, that if true, and if acknowledged as scientifically proven, you would definitely be in the race for a Nobel prize? If so, why don't you have an external party execute a proper scientific study? Surely 6+ million books, SWAMI fees and supplement sales must generate sufficient funds to support such an experiment? If you are so confident about the truth in your diets, the prospects of being awarded a Nobel prize should surely be enough motivation to get such a scientific study done.

1) Why don't you simply post some pictures of the degree of blood agglutination of individuals, before and after them consuming some 'bad lectin'-rich meal? (e.g. a beef-potato-bellpepper meal for a type A; milk with cereals for a type O; etc.) Surely, this would be a relatively easy experiment, and I feel it would hugely help to reduce skepticism (mine included).

It seems to me that this would require a blood draw from the hepatic portal vein, kinda hard to do.

And, I did not suggest that you leave the forum, I suggested that you would not be happy with anything said here. I did not feel you were attacking me and I did not intend to attack you, it's difficult to communicate the subtle nuances of intention in discussions that take place on a message board and not in person.

Posted by: Goldie, Wednesday, May 2, 2012, 12:31pm; Reply: 62

I think this so called 'diet' can be as scientific as you wish it to be.. BUT IT HAS TO FIX what ails YOU..

Stubborn adherence to this diet or any other, and questioning it's validity behind the word "scientifically" is to me a sign that there is more going on in your head. The brain as a functioning part of the body will adjust to thinking more clearly once it gets well fed. Fear from which your question may come from, is on unhealthy state of mind within the body. Both the mind and the brain work in tandem to see to it that, as healthy humans 'we can have a life!'

When one asks questions and does not accept any answer given then it is time to evaluate what is going on in your life. Self examination can be very disillusioning, and expensive if you go to professionals to hear what you wish to hear at a price. (Here advise is free.) I think that being young and to some extent 'ignorant' (not a derogative) and you just don't see the answers to what it is you 'need', you can easily develop circular thinking.

Being the individual you are, YOU should stick to your guns - as the game goes on - but know that in the end it is YOU who might do the changing. Being young/inexperienced/ and still healthy enough to pass- then by all means do not ruffle your feathers, stay in the mode/mood you are in and let time pass. Time is a great teacher.

Eventually you will be coming down with the 80% / 20% ratio on one side or the other with this diet or other things in life.. You can prevent the illnesses predictable to your inheritance, you can develop them earlier instead of later. One thing is for sure, you will survive for a long time, and your mind will occupy itself even longer to get the answers you wish NOT to SEE.

Yes changing from junk food to real foods will make some difference while young and healthy, but once you get ill the picture rapidly changes. That then will make you evaluate things not for some chart, list, or pretty picture, but by how you look and feel.. YOU as the individual you are.

People to much stuck on it's the 'other' guy who is wrong, or 'that' does not work for me before 'trying' it, or this is to 'complicated' for me, such people suffer mental issues and have a hard time in life. Healthy people create ways to fit the world to their own 'needs'-- what are yours?

Dr D in his infinite patience has lay-ed out all results for YOU to evaluate, then to follow through testing each food AGAINST what you KNOW and then after that is done, you might develop the correct questions.

ASKING: Is this scientific" ... is like asking is the world round/ some still think and believe and convince themselves that they are right and the world is hollow or flat.. YOUR question is way to broad to be scientific. It reminds me of the King and I.. in it he talks about being scientific, maybe you ought to rent the video and view it to get the answers to your life sciences--- That being- that you can't TRUST something unless it has a label. HERE nothing has a label other then the ones we give to things.. some foods good for us, some better and still others not good enough to eat. Some exercise better than others, some happy communications more so than others.. to each his or her own choices.

My life is simple! I read, I learn, I trust what 'I' experience and then I move on and go to the next question. Reformulate your question and then we'll see if the 'real' considerations are worth it. But please don't go on any of these diets here, they might fix what is most important to you and then you might stand naked having answered the question of: What is Life? - FOR YOU!

Here that answer is the only one that matters at all. It is not the foods, we chose not to eat, nor the foods sounding strange to me on my list, and I will not try them, (old habits prevent me) showing my chains on my brain...... HERE it is about what, how, or when will I enrich my life, so that I then can make the world a better place. I am not stuck in circular thinking.. all the best on your journey for that is- what this diet way of life- is all about..

2) Don't you agree that your diet is in essence so controversial, that if true, and if acknowledged as scientifically proven, you would definitely be in the race for a Nobel prize? If so, why don't you have an external party execute a proper scientific study? Surely 6+ million books, SWAMI fees and supplement sales must generate sufficient funds to support such an experiment? If you are so confident about the truth in your diets, the prospects of being awarded a Nobel prize should surely be enough motivation to get such a scientific study done.

Who would believe a self conducted study?

Yes Dr. D does deserve a Nobel Prize-- we all know that :). But for now he is changing the face of medicine in a very meaningful way. I have been following him for many years and here is just the surface of his life. Looking deeper you will see that he has written a textbook for students and is teaching at the University of Bridgeport( and much more). Creating an army of creative thinkers, doctors who can change people's lives.

Posted by: Easy E, Wednesday, May 2, 2012, 1:45pm; Reply: 65

I think that a lot of people go through a phase where they look for evidence that contradicts the info from the BTD or GTD. It can be hard to accept that certain foods that you were taught were healthy your whole life are actually not healthy for you in the long run.

Also tough for some markets out there that capitalize on this misinformation, since it could result in lost money for them.

I went through a phase like this myself (where i questioned it, since i am essentially an A-O hybrid of sorts, feeling like a walking contradiction:), but every other similar type of diet is too generalized, and none described me as accurately as the explorer and the foods it has (which many i loved before the diet, while many toxins for explorers made me want to gag). Dr. D goes into far more detail than the one size fits all approach.

I must admit I can see your point. Still, playing the devil's advocate, I would say this does not proof the positive effect of basing one's diet on avoiding 'bad lectins' (i.e. there could be other reasons for people feeling uniformly better).However, let's just forget this point for now.

Lectins are not the only factor in determining "who should eat what foods." This is especially true for SWAMI software.

Quoted Text

I do enormously appreciate your thoughts and feedback, and more importantly; the fact that you allow these threads to exist, and even participate in the discussion yourself. Of course the easy way out would be to just have this thread deleted and users like me blocked. ;)

It's clear (to me anyway) that you're asking an honest question, and truly do want to understand. The people who get blocked from this website are the ones who attack other members repeatedly, and the ones who promote another dietary system to the point of being SPAM, and are doing so in a way that negates the concept of individuality. (Many individuals on this forum are personally using elements from other dietary systems, but the key is they're recognizing that it works for THEM and may not work for others.) We don't kick people off the forum for asking questions and listening to the answers.

Quoted Text

2) Don't you agree that your diet is in essence so controversial, that if true, and if acknowledged as scientifically proven, you would definitely be in the race for a Nobel prize? If so, why don't you have an external party execute a proper scientific study? Surely 6+ million books, SWAMI fees and supplement sales must generate sufficient funds to support such an experiment? If you are so confident about the truth in your diets, the prospects of being awarded a Nobel prize should surely be enough motivation to get such a scientific study done.

Yes, he knows this diet is controversial. He's spent enough time over the years responding to critics.

I have no idea what a "double-blinded placebo controlled study" would cost and whether or not he has the resources for it. I'm not sure what kind of a profit margin he has on his books, supplements, etc, nor what his expenses are for product research and development.

He doesn't have any control over winning the Nobel prize. No investment in a research project would guarantee that.

It seems to me that this would require a blood draw from the hepatic portal vein, kinda hard to do.

And, I did not suggest that you leave the forum, I suggested that you would not be happy with anything said here. I did not feel you were attacking me and I did not intend to attack you, it's difficult to communicate the subtle nuances of intention in discussions that take place on a message board and not in person.

I do agree about the difficulty of communicating through a message board, and that probably also works the other way around. If definitely did/do not intend to personally attack anyone either.

You are going totally off-topic. You don't know me. Suggesting I am stubborn, inexperienced and have trust issues is totally irrelevant and unnecessary. To me it only indicates that you are apparently not able to address the content of my posts.

We have a saying " If someone doesn't know you can't tell them." I run into these people all the time.

Go seek your own truth about diet.

No one is forcing you to read my posts, nor am I asking you to follow my worldview. I am making relevant on-topic comments in a thread about the scientific evidence behind the BTD. If you feel that your 'worldview' is being threatened by my comments, its maybe better for you to just stay away instead of turning from intellectual to emotional responses.

That's why I am suggesting to have an external party execute the research. However, there's nothing wrong with self-conducted studies, if conducted properly. Researchers are receiving Nobel prizes all the time for self-conducted studies.

@ Easy E and ruthiegirlThanks for your replies. Please note that I am not at all arguing that Dr D's diets aren't any good! If you would read this complete thread from start to finish (although I can understand one may feel that would be too long a read) you would see that the only 'fundament' of Dr D's diets that I am questioning is the lectin-based one. (I must admit though that this is one of the core fundaments..) I do agree that Dr D's diets are very useful and valuable for a whole lot of other reasons; including the incorporation of knowledge about foods' glycemic indices, pesticide & hormone contents, organ-specific support, healing properties, etc.

Finally, I do want to point out this: it always are the same few regulars (coincidentally all female and not exactly young..) who start attacking people like me when they are ventilating healthy skepticism on these forums. Instead of having a normal discussion when encountering a person who does not share their beliefs, these regulars start attacking like a school of piranhas as soon as they notice that convincing the other person of their own beliefs is failing. Note I am not referring to each and everyone of the posters above, but those who feel addressed probably should.

Why can't you just all have a normal on-topic debate, without all-caps words in every sentence, without an overload of exclamation marks, and most importantly, without suggesting something may be wrong with someone's personal life or belief system.

You're driving a lot of people out of these forums; people who do not necessarily believe for the full 100% in the BTD fundamentals, but people who are (partially) following the diet nonetheless, and who are also helping out people in other topics on these forums.

Rest assured, I will probably leave these forums soon too. Just ask yourself if this is something you can be proud about and reconsider your approach the next time someone like me comes along.

Posted by: ruthiegirl, Wednesday, May 2, 2012, 2:36pm; Reply: 68

I certainly hope you don't leave the forum soon! (Uh oh- an exclamation point! And another one! I'd better stop now before you get scared off. )

Most of the science behind these diets is beyond me. My forte is emotional support and pratical cooking/meal planning advice. I think you'd make a valuable member of this forum, especially if you are successful in locating the scientific studies and photos you're searching for. Then you'll be able to share with others "I was a skeptic too but here are all these links I've put together that answer some questions." Or even "I'm still a skeptic but here are all these links I've put together that answer some of my questions."

If we get enough open-minded skeptics together, we can have a lot of deep scientific discussions on here that can "win over" even more skeptics who stumble in.

Posted by: Lloyd, Wednesday, May 2, 2012, 3:10pm; Reply: 69

This thread seems to have run its course.

Posted by: Dr. D, Thursday, May 3, 2012, 2:39pm; Reply: 70

I unlocked the thread to give a final response to Damon. Now I'm going to lock it again.

Quoted Text

1) Why don't you simply post some pictures of the degree of blood agglutination of individuals, before and after them consuming some 'bad lectin'-rich meal? (e.g. a beef-potato-bellpepper meal for a type A; milk with cereals for a type O; etc.) Surely, this would be a relatively easy experiment, and I feel it would hugely help to reduce skepticism (mine included).

The beef avoidance recommendation is not due to any lectin in beef, but rather the inability of most type As to make enough HCL, gastrin, pepsin and IAP to actually digest the food. These kind of associations are better analyzed from things like indican and breath hydrogen results. We do have some interesting preliminary results that show that type A's 'just off the boat' have high breath hydrogens on average and that these uniformly come down on the type A diet. The other lectin associations are usually from the pre-existing medical literature, so I don't feel a great need to re-verify those. Some lectins are also not particular strong agglutinins so their effects are not always evident in photographs. We must use other techniques that are not so obvious. One doesn't prove the connection between smoking and cancer by asking for a positive lung biopsy after one cigarette.

Quoted Text

2) Don't you agree that your diet is in essence so controversial, that if true, and if acknowledged as scientifically proven, you would definitely be in the race for a Nobel prize? If so, why don't you have an external party execute a proper scientific study? Surely 6+ million books, SWAMI fees and supplement sales must generate sufficient funds to support such an experiment? If you are so confident about the truth in your diets, the prospects of being awarded a Nobel prize should surely be enough motivation to get such a scientific study done.

Not sure I would agree that the diets are controversial. They require no special knowledge about physiology or immunology that is not already out there. It is true that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' but I truly fail to see why these would constitute extraordinary claims. ABO/Secretor is a big influence on the phenotype of the digestive tract and its relationship to the immune system. If someone doesn't accept that, they are simply ignorant of the literature, pure and simple. What should be the preferred response to such low-effort thinking? It's nice that you feel that the idea is worthy of a Nobel Prize. Frankly I do not, but that is besides the point. Although it would seem easy to design a study that could test the hypothesis, it would in fact be quite difficult, lengthy and prohibitively expensive. Food association studies can take years. And the participants must be closely watched. Also, would the subjects be blinded (i.e some got the right diet for their type, some the wrong)? A better type of study might be along the lines of what was done by the Seventh Day Adventists where they just let them do their thing and then compare their disease/death rates to averages over 2-3 decades. Another way might be to tack on this criteria in an ongoing project such as the 'Nurse's Study.' But these studies are best when the intervention is limited (i.e the amount of Omega-3 in diet, etc). A complete dietary protocol (times four, no less) seems to me like an administrative nightmare. A investigative group I organized two years ago came back with the estimate of 1000-1500 participants, one year duration and a price tag of 7-10 million dollars to produce an acceptable evidence basis. That's a lot of SWAMIS. In either case it would be a very long and arduous process, typically one that could only reasonably be undertaken in some sort of academic/governmental type initiative. I'd love to see it, though.